You answered your own question. The reason why Americans have to register with a party is BECAUSE it opens the door for all kinds of fraud and manipulation.
What exactly did they sue over? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:
Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an authorâ(TM)s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.
It seems to me a reimplementation of the same game should be legal. Change the words, art, and music, and you're good to go.
I'm a slower writer than you so I'm forced to listen, understand, and think of a way to summarize what the professor is lecturing about so I can record it in my notes quickly enough to keep up.
Oh, I don't write verbatim. There is a summarization process, but it's so limited by the available time that it's worse than useless. I've never gone back to my notes and been thankful I took them, ever.
In a lecture if I just sit there and listen and there's something I don't understand, that point is lost forever since I don't have any notes to review later.
That's when you raise your hand to ask a question.
transcribing the words and ideas of a lecturer requires a very high level of attention.
You're right. It requires so much attention to transcribe that there's no attention left to understand.
If I tell you something and you write it down, there is a much better chance that you will learn it.
If you're talking about a factoid, then sure. If you're talking about a concept, I'll learn it better if I spend the time conceptualizing it myself, rather than writing it down.
That's a lot of work to do when you could just read the textbook. All the information you need has already been arranged in a convenient matter in the text.
The reason is that you have to process the information to convert it from aural to written
I don't believe this for a second. I don't process stuff I transcribe at all. It's an automatic, non conscious process converting speech into text without being aware of any higher level meaning. There's no time to "process" anything, I have to write down what was just said before the next input arrives.
On the other hand, sitting quietly and thinking about what is being said gives me plenty of time to process information.
The cognitive dissonance occurs when people realize that the world's premier global festival is a "private" event in which the incredibly rich can exclude citizen participation for no better reason than it does not make them more rich.
What part of that induces any sort of cognitive dissonance? That's exactly what anyone should expect from the world today. There isn't a major institution on Earth that isn't thoroughly corrupted by money. Not one.
If you work with very large and very small numbers on a regular basis, you can indeed hold a number that large in your head. Exponents are not that abstract.
I find my ability to retain information increases greatly if I pay attention. If I'm writing, I'm not paying attention, I'm just a passive conduit for words going in my ears and out my fingers. If I do take notes, I generally find myself wondering what the hell I meant. Better to just pay attention in class and read the text. Notes are worthless.
If you wish to chastize me that times have changed, then good. Freedom has won and shifted the debate.
Freedom has won, if you're uber rich. The average person is much, much less free today than they were a generation ago. Forgive me if I'd rather live in a world where the bottom 99.9% are free, and the top 1% are not, than the other way around.
The problem is that government funded science hasn't really done that much for us.
That's a flat out lie.
Most of US science is and always was privately funded.
And most science in the US isn't basic science. It's product development.
IMHO researchers now focus on maintaining funding rather than doing science or delivering value.
Doing science is how one maintains funding. And "delivering value" is exactly what we don't want our researchers doing. We want them asking interesting questions, not questions that immediately lead to a salable product. The greatest discoveries always come from "hm, that's funny", not "I wonder if I could sell this".
Socialize the losses, privatize the gain works in science funding just like it does elsewhere in public funding.
The gains due to basic research are socialized throughout society. When research is published publically, everyone in the world gets the benefit of that knowledge.
That's generally because there's no gain to be had either because it never existed and never will, or because society has created obstacles which render the project valueless to anyone who tries to pursue it.
This is an absolutely baseless assertion.
For example, someone was claiming research into new vaccines and antibiotics were solely the domain of public funded research, ignoring that the rules on new drug testing throughout the developed world created an expensive testing situation where developing a valuable drug isn't sufficiently profitable even though it can save many lives.
And? Are you going to take a drug that hasn't been thoroughly tested for safety? I guess as long as the eeeevil government doesn't have anything to do with it, it's perfectly ok, right?
Preference voting, publicly financed campaigns, paid lobbying bans, strict term limits, and mandatory retirement for congressmen paid at the median income (to stop the revolving door between Congress and industry). Do all of these things, and we might get a functioning government back. But we'd need a functioning government to even get started, so we're screwed.
In my opinion, equality also includes treating people equally in regards to effort.
So you'd rather be treated by a doctor with an IQ of 80 who barely passed medical school through extraordinary effort than an ordinary doctor who exerted ordinary effort and graduated at the middle of his class?
No amount of effort overcomes the genetic advantage men have in sports over women
No amount of effort overcomes the genetic advantage West African men have over European men in sprinting. Should we have separate medals for individuals with the rs1815739 mutation in ACTN3?
Your ideological ramblings would mean women can't participate in sports in your system
Not at all, they just wouldn't get the highest honors in sports where they didn't earn them. Are you claiming that there's no point in participating in sports if you aren't good enough to be the world's best?
Even if that were the case, women could participate in competitions where they have a natural advantage. That is, unless you're going to assert that men are superior to women in every measurable way. But I'd find that hard to believe. There has to be some competition where broad hips or a richly interconnected corpus callosum provide an advantage.
Hey, since we're throwing out sex, why not throw out age too, another defining physiological segregator
Great example. They don't award gold medals for the fastest time by a 40 year old. Why is sex any different?
for some reason have a deep disdain for women's sports.
No, just sexism and other forms of prejudice.
I'm not interested in discussing ideologies
You were the one who brought ideology into it, when you accused me of being a social darwinist.
Discussing things with people of your mindset is unbearable, and I can only hope that you'll grow into a more well-rounded person in the future.
I can't change my opinions unless they are demonstrated to be incorrect. I love it when that happens, because it means I have grown as a person. But it won't happen except for discussions like this.
I don't think anyone ever reasonably stated that Linux wasn't efficient
Every time you turn around someone is saying that X11 is bloated and obsolete. This proves that incorrect. Notably, they were able to get better performance out of X11 than Windows without sacrificing network transparency. Someone should tell that to the Wayland guys.
An extension of your logic would mean we should just go and off all the handicapped people since they aren't as capable, or not bother teaching women math at all since they are statistically less capable at it in than men
You have to be kidding me. Advocating that we treat people equally is the same as advocating eugenics in your mind? WTF?
After all, if a sex or person is inferior at something by default, they shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to even try, eh?
Absolutely they should be allowed to try. They should just be judged by the same standards as everyone else.
The difference between men and women sport split vs. the bathroom scale is that the fat person has a means to lose weight, the woman or man does not have a reasonable method to change their sex
I'll restate the example with a metric that can't be modified so easily then: You might as well claim that your meter stick is discriminatory because it tells short people they are short. Should we declare that everyone is 2 meters tall and issue them "meter" sticks exactly 1/2 their height?
We do this because men and women are by nature unequal, but deserve the same recognition for their accomplishments within their half of the population.
This is what I don't understand. Why do they deserve recognition for achieving less?
You are arguing for a black and white world ruled by natural selection and evolution and calling it equal.
No, I'm not. I'm very much a socialist. From each according to ability, to each according to need. Key to making that work is accurately determining one's ability. Falsifying ones ability in the name of political correctness doesn't help anyone.
I'd hate it if I was born and told I couldn't amount to anything in something I loved b/c I'm not a man, and told to go clean the kitchen.
I don't see how anything I said could honestly be construed to mean this. If anything you're being sexist by suggesting that women aren't good for anything other than cleaning unless they are given special help by men. That sounds sociopathic and disgusting to me.
Of course my views are one sided, they are fact based and there is only one reality. And it's quite obvious what most people think when they go to the polls, it's generally something along the lines of "Fuck you, I've got mine!".
Treating people equally also includes respecting their differences.
No, that's treating people differently. Justice is blind, and referees should be too.
If you don't factor in that people are inherently different, a one-stop-solution approach is actually more unequal since its discriminatory towards anyone who doesn't fit the norm.
It's not discriminatory, it's reality. If you actually have less ability, you should actually not get a medal. Giving those with less ability an advantage is discriminatory against those with more ability. If you give a woman a gold medal for a 10s 100m, you're discriminating against the guy who got a 9.9s 100m but didn't win a gold.
You might as well claim that your bathroom scale is discriminatory because it tells fat people that they're fat.
While it would be convenient if one-stop solutions and ideologies worked, they typically fall short and only serve as a cop-out for critical thinking on a subject.
You haven't actually made an argument here. You've just declared that treating people differently is treating people equally, which is nonsense on its face, and claimed that I'm wrong by way of ad hominem. Do you have an actual argument?
Slashdot Mirror
If it's a privilege escalation exploit, it's *always* the OS's fault. By definition.
How do you figure they got it wrong?
I had thought that one day N64 cartridges would be as unplayable as NES cartridges but they appear to work for much longer
N64 cartridges are as unplayable as NES cartridges. They are both completely non-unplayable.
You answered your own question. The reason why Americans have to register with a party is BECAUSE it opens the door for all kinds of fraud and manipulation.
Didn't they try look & feel lawsuits in the 80's with little success? Why is it different with games?
The Tetris ruling is a pretty bad one. Allowing the Tetris Company to copyright the entire set of tetrominoes is idiotic.
I don't see why you'd hate Zynga more than copyright law. Don't play Zynga games and they don't affect you. You can't opt out of copyright law.
What exactly did they sue over? According to the U.S. Copyright Office:
It seems to me a reimplementation of the same game should be legal. Change the words, art, and music, and you're good to go.
Since when could you copyright game rules?
How do you get twice the time? I have exactly enough time to listen and think. Any time spent writing detracts from the thinking.
I'm a slower writer than you so I'm forced to listen, understand, and think of a way to summarize what the professor is lecturing about so I can record it in my notes quickly enough to keep up.
Oh, I don't write verbatim. There is a summarization process, but it's so limited by the available time that it's worse than useless. I've never gone back to my notes and been thankful I took them, ever.
In a lecture if I just sit there and listen and there's something I don't understand, that point is lost forever since I don't have any notes to review later.
That's when you raise your hand to ask a question.
transcribing the words and ideas of a lecturer requires a very high level of attention.
You're right. It requires so much attention to transcribe that there's no attention left to understand.
If I tell you something and you write it down, there is a much better chance that you will learn it.
If you're talking about a factoid, then sure. If you're talking about a concept, I'll learn it better if I spend the time conceptualizing it myself, rather than writing it down.
That's a lot of work to do when you could just read the textbook. All the information you need has already been arranged in a convenient matter in the text.
The reason is that you have to process the information to convert it from aural to written
I don't believe this for a second. I don't process stuff I transcribe at all. It's an automatic, non conscious process converting speech into text without being aware of any higher level meaning. There's no time to "process" anything, I have to write down what was just said before the next input arrives.
On the other hand, sitting quietly and thinking about what is being said gives me plenty of time to process information.
The cognitive dissonance occurs when people realize that the world's premier global festival is a "private" event in which the incredibly rich can exclude citizen participation for no better reason than it does not make them more rich.
What part of that induces any sort of cognitive dissonance? That's exactly what anyone should expect from the world today. There isn't a major institution on Earth that isn't thoroughly corrupted by money. Not one.
If you work with very large and very small numbers on a regular basis, you can indeed hold a number that large in your head. Exponents are not that abstract.
I find my ability to retain information increases greatly if I pay attention. If I'm writing, I'm not paying attention, I'm just a passive conduit for words going in my ears and out my fingers. If I do take notes, I generally find myself wondering what the hell I meant. Better to just pay attention in class and read the text. Notes are worthless.
If you wish to chastize me that times have changed, then good. Freedom has won and shifted the debate.
Freedom has won, if you're uber rich. The average person is much, much less free today than they were a generation ago. Forgive me if I'd rather live in a world where the bottom 99.9% are free, and the top 1% are not, than the other way around.
The problem is that government funded science hasn't really done that much for us.
That's a flat out lie.
Most of US science is and always was privately funded.
And most science in the US isn't basic science. It's product development.
IMHO researchers now focus on maintaining funding rather than doing science or delivering value.
Doing science is how one maintains funding. And "delivering value" is exactly what we don't want our researchers doing. We want them asking interesting questions, not questions that immediately lead to a salable product. The greatest discoveries always come from "hm, that's funny", not "I wonder if I could sell this".
Socialize the losses, privatize the gain works in science funding just like it does elsewhere in public funding.
The gains due to basic research are socialized throughout society. When research is published publically, everyone in the world gets the benefit of that knowledge.
That's generally because there's no gain to be had either because it never existed and never will, or because society has created obstacles which render the project valueless to anyone who tries to pursue it.
This is an absolutely baseless assertion.
For example, someone was claiming research into new vaccines and antibiotics were solely the domain of public funded research, ignoring that the rules on new drug testing throughout the developed world created an expensive testing situation where developing a valuable drug isn't sufficiently profitable even though it can save many lives.
And? Are you going to take a drug that hasn't been thoroughly tested for safety? I guess as long as the eeeevil government doesn't have anything to do with it, it's perfectly ok, right?
Preference voting, publicly financed campaigns, paid lobbying bans, strict term limits, and mandatory retirement for congressmen paid at the median income (to stop the revolving door between Congress and industry). Do all of these things, and we might get a functioning government back. But we'd need a functioning government to even get started, so we're screwed.
Is there anything about the Olympics that isn't corrupt and disgusting?
RIM is the only secure option -- the playing field has not be leveled.
In what way is RIM more secure than anything that implements OTR? e.g. Gibberbot on Android
In my opinion, equality also includes treating people equally in regards to effort.
So you'd rather be treated by a doctor with an IQ of 80 who barely passed medical school through extraordinary effort than an ordinary doctor who exerted ordinary effort and graduated at the middle of his class?
No amount of effort overcomes the genetic advantage men have in sports over women
No amount of effort overcomes the genetic advantage West African men have over European men in sprinting. Should we have separate medals for individuals with the rs1815739 mutation in ACTN3?
Your ideological ramblings would mean women can't participate in sports in your system
Not at all, they just wouldn't get the highest honors in sports where they didn't earn them. Are you claiming that there's no point in participating in sports if you aren't good enough to be the world's best?
Even if that were the case, women could participate in competitions where they have a natural advantage. That is, unless you're going to assert that men are superior to women in every measurable way. But I'd find that hard to believe. There has to be some competition where broad hips or a richly interconnected corpus callosum provide an advantage.
Hey, since we're throwing out sex, why not throw out age too, another defining physiological segregator
Great example. They don't award gold medals for the fastest time by a 40 year old. Why is sex any different?
for some reason have a deep disdain for women's sports.
No, just sexism and other forms of prejudice.
I'm not interested in discussing ideologies
You were the one who brought ideology into it, when you accused me of being a social darwinist.
Discussing things with people of your mindset is unbearable, and I can only hope that you'll grow into a more well-rounded person in the future.
I can't change my opinions unless they are demonstrated to be incorrect. I love it when that happens, because it means I have grown as a person. But it won't happen except for discussions like this.
I don't think anyone ever reasonably stated that Linux wasn't efficient
Every time you turn around someone is saying that X11 is bloated and obsolete. This proves that incorrect. Notably, they were able to get better performance out of X11 than Windows without sacrificing network transparency. Someone should tell that to the Wayland guys.
An extension of your logic would mean we should just go and off all the handicapped people since they aren't as capable, or not bother teaching women math at all since they are statistically less capable at it in than men
You have to be kidding me. Advocating that we treat people equally is the same as advocating eugenics in your mind? WTF?
After all, if a sex or person is inferior at something by default, they shouldn't be allowed the opportunity to even try, eh?
Absolutely they should be allowed to try. They should just be judged by the same standards as everyone else.
The difference between men and women sport split vs. the bathroom scale is that the fat person has a means to lose weight, the woman or man does not have a reasonable method to change their sex
I'll restate the example with a metric that can't be modified so easily then: You might as well claim that your meter stick is discriminatory because it tells short people they are short. Should we declare that everyone is 2 meters tall and issue them "meter" sticks exactly 1/2 their height?
We do this because men and women are by nature unequal, but deserve the same recognition for their accomplishments within their half of the population.
This is what I don't understand. Why do they deserve recognition for achieving less?
You are arguing for a black and white world ruled by natural selection and evolution and calling it equal.
No, I'm not. I'm very much a socialist. From each according to ability, to each according to need. Key to making that work is accurately determining one's ability. Falsifying ones ability in the name of political correctness doesn't help anyone.
I'd hate it if I was born and told I couldn't amount to anything in something I loved b/c I'm not a man, and told to go clean the kitchen.
I don't see how anything I said could honestly be construed to mean this. If anything you're being sexist by suggesting that women aren't good for anything other than cleaning unless they are given special help by men. That sounds sociopathic and disgusting to me.
Of course my views are one sided, they are fact based and there is only one reality. And it's quite obvious what most people think when they go to the polls, it's generally something along the lines of "Fuck you, I've got mine!".
Treating people equally also includes respecting their differences.
No, that's treating people differently. Justice is blind, and referees should be too.
If you don't factor in that people are inherently different, a one-stop-solution approach is actually more unequal since its discriminatory towards anyone who doesn't fit the norm.
It's not discriminatory, it's reality. If you actually have less ability, you should actually not get a medal. Giving those with less ability an advantage is discriminatory against those with more ability. If you give a woman a gold medal for a 10s 100m, you're discriminating against the guy who got a 9.9s 100m but didn't win a gold.
You might as well claim that your bathroom scale is discriminatory because it tells fat people that they're fat.
While it would be convenient if one-stop solutions and ideologies worked, they typically fall short and only serve as a cop-out for critical thinking on a subject.
You haven't actually made an argument here. You've just declared that treating people differently is treating people equally, which is nonsense on its face, and claimed that I'm wrong by way of ad hominem. Do you have an actual argument?